UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

AUG 2 4 2012 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia Environmental Services 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, Illinois 62201 

Re: Finding of Violation of Clean Air Act 

V eolia Environmental Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Dear Mr. Harris: 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF 

. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing the enclosed Finding of Violation (FOV) 

to Veolia Environmental Services (you). We find that you are violating Sections 112 and 114 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S. C. §§ 7412 and 7414, at your Sauget, Illinois facility. 

We have several enforcement options under Section 113(a)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S. C. 

§ 7413(a)(3). These options include issuing an administrative compliance order, issuing an 

administrative penalty order and bringing a judicial civil or criminal action. 

We are offering you an opportunity to confer with us about the violations alleged in the FOV. 

The conference will give you the opportunity to present information on the specific fmdings of 

violation, the efforts you have taken to comply, and the steps you will take to prevent future 

violations. 

Please plan for your facility's technical and management personnel to attend the conference to 

discuss compliance measures and connnitments. You may have an attorney represent you at this 

conference. 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) 
The EPA contacts in this matter are Sarah Marshall and Nathan Frank. You may call Ms. 

Marshall or Mr. Frank at 312.886.6797 and 312.886.3850, respectively, to request a conference. 

You should make the request within 10 calendar days following receipt of this letter. We should 

hold any conference within 30 calendar days following receipt of this letter. 

Sincerely, 

,f ~ 

--z:-/ .J 

Georg::::r. ~ernia Acting~r 

Air and Radiation 

cc: Ray Pilapil, Manager 

Compliance and Systems Management Section 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Joseph M. Kellmeyer 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

Veolia Environmental Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Proceedings Pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FINDING OF VIOLATION 

EPA-5-12-IL-15 

FINDING OF VIOLATION 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds that Veolia Environmental Services 

(Veolia) is violating Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and its 

implementing regulations for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Hazardous Waste Combustors at 40 C.F .R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, and Section 114 of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7414, <'It its Sauget, Illinois facility (Facility). 

Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

Section 114 of the CAA: 

1. Section 114 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, provides, in part, that the 

Administrator of the EPA may require any person who owns or operates any emission source to 

install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment to determine whether thatsource is in violation 

of Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412. 

The NESHAP for HazardousWaste Combustors: 

2. On September 30, 1999, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC MACT) at 40 C.F.R. Part 

63, Subpart EEE (64 Fed. Reg. 53038). 

3. In July 2001, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the HWC MACT. 

Cement Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 347 U.S. App. D.C. 127,255 F.3d 855, 857 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

The Court stayed the vacatur uotil EPA could promulgate interim standards. · 

4. On February 13, 2002, EPA promulgated the HWC MACT interim standards at 

40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (67 Fed. Reg. 6792). 

5. On October 12, 2005, EPA promulgated the HWC MACT final standards at 40 . 

C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (70 Fed. Reg. 59402). 
6. The HWC MACT final standards at 40 C.P.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE became 

effective on October 14, 2008. (70 Fed. Reg. 59402). 

7. The HWC MACT applies to hazardous waste incinerators (HW incinerators). 40 

C.P.R. § 63.1200 .. 

8. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1206(a)(l)(ii), requires existing HW 

incinerators to comply with emission standards provided under 40 C.P.R § 63.1219, including 

the standard for mercury, by no later than October 14,2008. 

9. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1219(a)(2), prohibits HW incinerators from 

emitting into the atmosphere mercury in excess of 130 ug/dscm, corrected to 7% oxygen. 

10. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R. § 63.1206(c), provides operating requirements for 

HW incinerators and states that failure to comply with the operating requirements is failure to 

ensure compliance with the emission standard, including the mercury standard in 40 C.P.R. 

§ 63.1219(a)(2). 

11. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1207(b)(l), requires HW incinerators to 

conduct a comprehensive performance test (CPT) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

standards and establish operating parameter limitations (OPLs) that ensure compliance with 

emission standards, including the mercury standard in 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1219(a)(2). 

12. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1211(c), requires HW incinerators to 

develop and include in the operating record at the facility a Document of Compliance (DOC) by 

the compliance date of the regulations. The DOC identifies the applicable emission standards 

and the OPLs under§ 63.1209 that will ensure compliance with those emission standards. When 

the DOC is included in the operating record, a source is no longer subject to the previously 

applicable Notice of Compliance (NOC) that documented compliance with, and established 

OPLs for, the interim HWC MACT emission standards. 

13. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1211(c)(3), requires HW incinerators to 

include a signed and dated certification in the DOC that, based on an engineering evaluation 

prepared under the source's direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to 

ensure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information and supporting 

documentation, and considering at a minimum the design, operation, and maintenance 

characteristics of the combustor and emissions control equipment, the types, quantities, and 

characteristics of feedstreams, and available emissions data: 

a. the HW incinerator is in compliance with the emission standards of the HWC 

MACTand 

b. the limits on the operating parameters under § 63.1209 ensure compliance 

with the emission standards of the HWC MACT (emphasis added). 

14. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1207G)(1)(i), requires HW incinerators to 

submit a NOC within 90 days of completion of a CPT. The NOC must document compliance 

2 
with the emission standards and continuous monitoring system requirements, and identifY OPLs 

under§ 63.1209. 

15. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207G)(1)(ii), requires HW incinerators, 

upon postmark of the NOC, to comply with all operating requirements specified in the NOC in 

lieu of the limits specified in the DOC required under § 63.1211 (c). 

16. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(1)(i), requires that HW incinerators 

operate under the operating requirements specified in the applicable DOC under 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1211(c) or NOC under40 C.F.R. §§ 63.12070) and 63.1210(d). 

17. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1), requires that prior to feeding the 

material to the incinerator, HW incinerators must obtain an analysis of each feedstream that is 

sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feed rate limits. The applicable feed rate 

limits are OPLs for the HW incinerators. 

18. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2), requires HW incinerators to 

develop and implement a feedstream analysis plan (F AP) and record it in the operating record. 

The F AP must specifY the frequency with which a source must review or repeat the initial 

analysis of the feedstreiun to ensure that the analysis is accurate and up to date. 

19. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(4), states that to comply with 

applicable feed rate limits, HW incinerators must monitor and record feed rates by, among other 

requirements, determining and recording the value of the parameter for each feedstream by 

sampling and analysis or other method. 

The Veolia HWC MACT Feedstream Analysis Plan: 

20. Veolia's F AP, at Section 5.3, specifies that the procedure for determining 

concentrations of Arsenic, Berylliwn, Cadmium, Chromium and Lead in samples is EPA SW846 Method 6010C. EPA SW-846 Method 6010C is for the use of inductively coupled plasmaatomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). 

21. EPA SW-846 Method 601 OC Section 4.2.6 states that the interference effects must 

be evaluated for each individual instrument. This involves determining and documenting the 

effect of referenced interferences and any other suspected interference for each recommended 

wavelength. The method goes on to require that a computer routine be used for automatic 

correction ou all analyses. 

22. The F AP, at Section 6.0(3), requires that the analytical information for the 

feedstreams be re-evaluated on a frequency of five years since the last assessment of the 

feedstream. 

CAA Enforcement Authority: 

23. Section 1l3(a)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3), provides that whenever, on 

the basis of any information available to the Administrator, the Administrator finds that any 

3 
person has violated, or is in violation of, inter alia, Sections 112 or 114 of the CAA, the 

Administrator may issue an administrative penalty order, an order requiring compliance, or a 

civil or criminal action, as appropriate. 

Finding of Fact 

24. Veolia owns and operates three hazardous waste incinerators at #7 Mobile 

A venue, Sauget, Illinois. 

25. Veolia's incinerators are subject to the HWC MACT requirements at 40 C.F.R. 

Part 63, Subpart EEE. 

Fact Related to Section 114 of the CAA Violation: 

26. On March 10, 2010, EPA issued an Information Request under Section 114 of the 

CAA to Veolia instructing the HW incinerator to install and operate a mercury continuous 

emissions monitor (CEM) on each of its three incinerators, including a request that Veolia 

submit requests for proposals (RFPs) to mercury CEM vendors by March 26, 20 I 0; provide 

copies of the RFPs to EPA by March 30, 2010; submit an Alternative Monitoring Plan covering 

the mercury CEMs to EPA by May 16, 2010; perform all of the required certification and 

calibration of the CEMs upon installation and operation; provide all CEMs data on a monthly 

basis for one year after certification; and provide appropriate waste analyses. 

27. To date, V eolia has failed to provide to EPA any of the information, and take the 

actions, identified in Paragraph 26, above. 

Facts Related to Emission Standard and Feed Rate OPL Violations: 

28. Veolia conducted stack tests for MACT metals, including mercury, in August and 

September 2008 on Incinerators 2, 3, and 4. During the test, V eolia fed mercury into the 

incinerators in the form of waste and a pre-calibrated spike. 

29. On October I 0, 2008, based on the 2008 stack testing, Veolia submitted to EPA a 

NOC under the interim HWC MACT standards containing, in relevant part, the following feed 

rate OPLs for mercury (Hg): 

Unit Hg Feedrate/OPL 

lb!hour 

2 0.0047 

3 0.0047 

4 0.031 

30. Veolia calculated the OPLs for mercury in the October 10,2008 NOC using an 

incorrect moisture content for the waste, resulting in higher than appropriate mercury feed rate 

OPLs. 

4 
31. Veolia filed a DOC under the fmal HWC MACT in its operating record at its 

Facility on October 14, 2008. The DOC contained, in relevant part, the following feed rate OPLs 

for mercury: 

Unit Hg Feedrate/OPL 

lblhour 

2 0.0034 

3 0.0034 

4 0.026 

32. The OPLs specified in paragraph 31 above were based on the rate mercury was 

fed during the 2008 metals stack test with an updated, yet still incorrect, moisture content value 

that resulted in higher than appropriate mercury feed rate OPLs. 

33. On March 16,2010, after Veolia conducted its CPT in December 2009, Veolia 

submitted to EPA a NOC under the fmal HWC MACT standards containing, in relevant part, the 

following feed rate OPLs for mercury which were updated with the correct moisture content 

values: 

Unit Hg Feedrate/OPL 

lb/honr 

2 0.0019 

3 0.0019 

4 0.026 

34. EPA has determined that the 2008 metals stack test spike mercury concentration 

Veolia used to calculate the feed rate OPLs for mercury was incorrect, resulting in mercury feed 

rate OPLs that remained higher than appropriate. 

35. The Facility is operating under a Title V permit issued by EPA on September 12, 

2008. The Title V permit does not contain feed rate OPLs for mercury, semi-volatile metals 

(SVM), or low volatile metals (L VM), as required by the HWC MACT, because EPA did not 

have reliable data necessary to establish the appropriate OPLs for those hazardous wastes. 

36. Between October I 0, 2008 and May 31,2009, Veolia operated Incinerator 2 

above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance with the HWC 

MACT mercury emission standard for at least 9,600 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 

37. Between October I 0, 2008 and May 31, 2009, Veolia operated Incinerator 3 

above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance with the HWC 

MACT mercury emission standard for at least 11,500 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 

38. Between October I 0, 2008 and May 31, 2009, Veolia operated Incinerator 4 

above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance with the HWC 

MACT mercury emission standard for at least 6, I 00 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 

5 
Facts Related to Waste Analysis Violations: 

39. In October 2008, Veolia developed a FAP as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1209(c)(2). 

40. From December 5 through December 15,2011, EPA's National Enforcement 

Investigations Center (NEIC) conducted a focused investigation ofVeolia's compliance with the 

CAA and RCRA's waste analysis procedures. 

41. As part of the investigation, NEIC did an in depth review of less than 1% of the 

waste profiles received by Veolia in 2011 and less than 1.5% of the waste volume received by 

V eolia in 2011. NEIC found that a high percentage of the profiles it reviewed were inaccurate. 

Therefore, EPA believes that a broader investigation would reveal that significantly more waste 

profiles at Veolia' s facility are inaccurate. 

42. Veolia used the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) concentrations 

instead of the total metals concentrations as the value of metals in a feedstream for at least two 

waste profiles, specifically 236152 and 691163. Veolia's practice underestimates the actual 

metals concentration in the waste stream. 

4 3. NEIC inspectors found that V eolia used generic waste profiles for waste streams 

that contain volatile and semi-volatile metals, and assigns one metals concentration based on the 

generic waste profile rather than analyzing for metals each time the waste is received. For 

example: 

a. ProfilesCI5789 and 660210 are both described as "cyanide containing 

wastes." While both profiles list cadmium cyanide as a possible constituent, 

Veolia uses a value of6,470 mg/kg cadmium for profile C15789 and 1 mg/kg 

cadmium for profile 660210. Since these are very similar waste streams 

generated by different generators, Veolia should analyze these variable waste 

streams each time they arrive on site. 

b. Profile 374339 is organic debris, and the metals concentrations in the waste 

loads could vary greatly. Veolia should analyze these variable waste streams 

each time they arrive on site. 

c. Profile CARBN1 is a generic profile broadly used by Veolia that uses a 

standard concentration value for chromium of139 mg/kg. One of the load 

receipts received on April8, 2011, and sampled and analyzed on June 9, 2011, 

had an actual chromium concentration of 99,780 mg/kg. Standard profiles 

such as CARBNl, that have the potential to have significant variation in 

metals concentration, do not accurately estimate the metals concentration of 

the waste streams. Only 19 of the 330 total CARBN1loads received in a 3-

year period (June 2009 to June 2012) were sampled and analyzed for metals, 

and all of these loads were sampled after January 201 L The use ofoverly 

broad standard profiles leads to incorrect metals concentrations being used to 

calculate the feed rates for the HWC incinerators. 

6 
d. Veolia used several profiles that use metals concentrations identical to those 

used in other profiles. This is statistically unlikely. 

44. Veoliafeeds incinerator ash from Incinerators 2 and 3 into Incinerator 4 prior to 

offsite disposal. NEIC inspectors found that Veolia analyzed this ash for metals only once in the 

last seven years. NEIC inspectors analyzed six grab samples of the ash from Incinerators 2 and 

3. The results of the analysis show that the metals composition of the ash is highly variable. 

45. NEIC inspectors identified the presence of conflicting metals data between the 

profile package and the information in the waste tracking system (WTS) and the incinerator 

control system (ICS) as follows: 

a. The profile package for Profile 236152 uses the material safety data sheet 

(MSDS) concentration of three to six percent chromium as chromium oxide 

(30,000 to 60,000 mg/kg). res uses a value of228 mg/kg for chromium 

oxide. 

b. The profile package for Profile 691163 has a TCLP value for chromium of 1.8 

mg/L, while ICS and WTS use a value of 0 mg/L. 

c. The profile package for Profile AF3753 has a total mercury value of 4,140 

mg/kg and TLCP value of37.8 mg/kg, but WTS and ICS used a value of25. 

mg/kg for at least five years. 

46. Veolia uses ICP~AES software for metals analysis. When unknown constituents 

are present in a sample, automatic background and overlap corrections result in large negative 

values. Veolia does not measure all major elements in samples to identify and correct potential 

negative interferences which could underestimate the metals concentrations. This results in 

·inaccurate feedstream· analysis. 

Violations 

47. To date, Veolia has failed to provide any of the information required by the 

March 10, 2010 Information Request in violation of Section 114 of the CAA. 

48. Veolia failed to and continues to fail to ensure compliance with the HWC MACT 

mercury emission standard by failing to establish an appropriate mercury feed rate OPL in its 

October 10,2008 NOC, October 14,2008 DOC, and March 16,2010 NOC in violation of the 

HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1206(a)(ii), 63.1206(c), 63.1207(b)(l), 63.12ll(c), and 

63.12070)(1 )(i). 

49. Between October 10,2008 and May 31,2009, Veolia operated Incinerators 2, 3, 

and 4 above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance with the 

HWC MACT mercury emission standard as described in Paragraphs 29 through 38, above, in 

violation of the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1206(a)(ii), 63.1206(c)(l )(i), 63.1219(a)(2). 

50. Veolia failed and continues to fail to ensure that qualified personnel properly 

gathered and evaluated the information and supporting documentation from the 2008 metals 

7 
stack test to establish mercury feed rate OPLs that ensure compliance with the HWC MACT 

mercury emission standard in violation of the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.121l(c)(3). 

· 51. By using the TCLP concentrations instead of the total metals on Profiles 236152 

and 691163, Veolia failed and continues to fail to obtain an analysis of each of the related 

feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feed rate OPLs in violation of 

. the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(l) and 63.1209(c)(4). 

52. By using generic waste profiles and assuming a constant metals concentration 

for variable wastes, rather than analyzing each waste stream, Veolia failed and continues to fail 

to obtain an analysis of each of the related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with 

the applicablefeed rate OPLs in violation of the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1) and 

63.1209(c)(4). 

53. Veolia failed and continues to fail to analyze the ash from Incinerators 2 and 3 

at a frequency necessary to obtain an analysis of each of the related feedstreams sufficient to 

document compliance with the applicable feed rate limits OPLs in violation of the HWC MACT 

at 40 C.F.R. § 63,1209(c)(1) and 63.1209(c)(4) and Section 6.0(3) of the FAP. 

54. Veolia failed and continues to fail to resolve the conflict between metals data 

for Profiles 236152, 691163, and AF3753 which resulted in a failure to obtain an analysis of 

each of the related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feed rate 

OPLs in violation of the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1209(c)(2) and 63.1209(c)(4) and 

Section 6.0 of the FAP. 

55. Veolia failed and continues to fail to evaluate interference effects on its ICPAES resulting in a failure to obtain an analysis of each of the related feedstreams sufficient to 

document compliance with the applicable feed rate limits in violation of the HWC MACT at 40 

C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2) and 63.1209(c)(4)and Section 5.3 of the FAPc 

Date 

8